Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

The Blind Boys of High CourtFollow

#1 Jul 31 2014 at 9:09 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,243 posts
SCJ Ginsberg on the Hobby Lobby Case:

Quote:
Speaking with Katie Couric on Yahoo Global News, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that five of her male counterparts on the court have “a blind spot” when it comes to women’s issues.

After noting that all three female justices were in the minority in the recent Hobby Lobby decision, Couric asked Ginsburg whether she “believed the five male justices truly understood the ramifications of their decision.”

Following a long pause, Ginsburg said, “I would have to say, ‘No.’”

You can hear/watch the interview in it's entirety HERE.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#2 Jul 31 2014 at 9:27 AM Rating: Good
******
44,314 posts
Yeah, but a woman's opinion about her body is less important than a dude's freedom to oppress under the guise of religion. And make sure it's Christian or it doesn't count.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#3 Jul 31 2014 at 9:40 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,004 posts
God says you have to keep that rape-baby he gifted you, but hey at least you don't have to wear a hijab! Of course if you were wearing one, and not that low-cut tank top, it would have never happened in the first place, but we'll save that for another day.
Yay freedom! Smiley: yippee

Edited, Jul 31st 2014 8:40am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#4 Aug 01 2014 at 7:29 AM Rating: Good
******
44,314 posts
God also says to kill your wife if she isn't a virgin on your wedding night.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#5 Aug 01 2014 at 7:39 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,243 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
God also says to kill your wife if she isn't a virgin on your wedding night.
But don't harm the minute blob of cells she carries in her womb. That would be murder.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#6 Aug 01 2014 at 8:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,318 posts
Elinda wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
God also says to kill your wife if she isn't a virgin on your wedding night.
But don't harm the minute blob of cells she carries in her womb. That would be murder.


Unless God tells you to, of course. Then it's a laudable example of faith.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#7 Aug 01 2014 at 4:51 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
The split was ideological, and not gender based. If there had been any mix of sexes among the conservative and liberal justices, the ruling would have been the same. To make this about the *** of the justices is a pure fabricated cheap shot. Let's appoint female liberal justices so that we can call conservatives sexist any time a ruling on an issue involving ***/gender doesn't go our way. Kinda like electing a black president so you can call conservatives racist any time they oppose something the president is doing.

The liberal bag of tricks isn't that hard to figure out and quite consistently revolves around finding something, anything, other than the issue itself to use to argue their side. Let's not talk about rights and the constitution. Nope! Let's just call the other side sexist because they have penises and thus can't possibly understand a woman's point of view. It's not about point of view (or it shouldn't). And it's not even about ***. It's about whether the government can force an employer to provide services to an employee that violates the employers religious beliefs. The alignment of the specific issue at hand and *** is done deliberately to create the perception of competing rights, but the ruling would (should!) be the same if it were some service provided to men which violated the employers beliefs.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#8 Aug 01 2014 at 5:07 PM Rating: Excellent
The government can force a business to do a lot of different things, one is to provide health care at a specific minimum level. Businesses cannot have religious beliefs, the owner is not providing anything, their business is.

It's also always telling that often men's products like Viagra apparently are fine, even though they have far less use than women's birth control.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#9 Aug 01 2014 at 5:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
The split was ideological, and not gender based. If there had been any mix of sexes among the conservative and liberal justices, the ruling would have been the same.

I don't really believe that. There's been numerous senate bills regarding gender issues and the GOP splits towards the Democratic side are pretty much always the female wing of the GOP senate.

While the senate isn't the SCotUS, I think it gives a decent illustration of ideology in conflict with gender.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#10 Aug 01 2014 at 5:26 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
gbaji wrote:
It's about whether the government can force an employer to provide services to an employee that violates the employers religious beliefs. The alignment of the specific issue at hand and *** is done deliberately to create the perception of competing rights, but the ruling would (should!) be the same if it were some service provided to men which violated the employers beliefs.


Sir Xsarus wrote:
The government can force a business to do a lot of different things, one is to provide health care at a specific minimum level. Businesses cannot have religious beliefs, the owner is not providing anything, their business is.


Perhaps if you don't change the word I used, your response would be more useful. Let's recall that we already had this discussion (months ago), and it was explained that in this case the business was wholly owned by a single family, and thus the religious beliefs of the "owner/employer" did apply. We're not talking about a publicly traded corporation here.

Let me also point out that I disagree that the government should have the authority to force employers (of any kind) to provide any specific benefits, health or otherwise. It's because we've crept the power of the government into this area that we're now having to deal with this sort of issue in the first place. If we left it in the hands of negotiation between the employer/employee as to what pay/benefits/etc were involved and kept the government out of it, we'd have no need to go to court over crap like this.

Quote:
It's also always telling that often men's products like Viagra apparently are fine, even though they have far less use than women's birth control.


Let's also be clear on two things:

1. The issue isn't what the differences are, but who makes the decision. It's about the government forcing the employer to provide something rather than letting the employer make that decision themselves.

2. In this particular case, the issue was with birth control that acts as an abortive process (iud, day after pills, etc). Again, I personally think that *any* mandate is wrong, but if you're going to make a particular comparison, you should at least make the right one. This was not about "things which help people have ***", but "things which terminate a pregnancy". Viagra doesn't do that.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#11 Aug 01 2014 at 5:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
Perhaps if you don't change the word I used, your response would be more useful. Let's recall that we already had this discussion (months ago), and it was explained that in this case the business was wholly owned by a single family, and thus the religious beliefs of the "owner/employer" did apply. We're not talking about a publicly traded corporation here.
right, and maybe you missed it, but I'm very clearly stating that I do not think this should be the case. As soon as you are interacting in a commercial setting with employers and customers you are not an individual with beliefs, but a business. I'm not using the word employer, because it falsely equates the people running a business with the business. You used this word on purpose for the very same reason.

Quote:
Let me also point out that I disagree that the government should have the authority to force employers (of any kind) to provide any specific benefits, health or otherwise. It's because we've crept the power of the government into this area that we're now having to deal with this sort of issue in the first place. If we left it in the hands of negotiation between the employer/employee as to what pay/benefits/etc were involved and kept the government out of it, we'd have no need to go to court over crap like this.
I'm trying to point out that the government has the authority to put in place regulations that control how a business is run. you may agree with certain regulations and disagree with other ones, but that doesn't invalidate the authority of the government in this situation. So it's nice that you have something against health care, but is pretty much irrelevant.

Edited, Aug 1st 2014 6:41pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#12 Aug 01 2014 at 7:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,586 posts

Gbaji would love to deregulate businesses...until he'd realize that people's personal assets would become fair game in lawsuits, and then he'd be right off that bandwagon. You want government off your back? Then say goodbye to limited liability. Oh, and say goodbye to low corporate tax rate...your business is a person, it gets taxed like one, which will mean 40% in most cases.
____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#13 Aug 01 2014 at 7:40 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
right, and maybe you missed it, but I'm very clearly stating that I do not think this should be the case. As soon as you are interacting in a commercial setting with employers and customers you are not an individual with beliefs, but a business.


A business owned by a single person (or family) is the property of that person or family. There must be some limit to what the government can require you to do with your property, right? Does the fact that you own a home mean the government can force you to allow others to live there (there's a whole amendment to the constitution sayin that it can't btw). You're focusing on the idea that a publicly accessible business must comply with certain rules, and I agree with that, to a point. Discrimination against employees or customers, for example.

But I do believe that a business is still the property of the owner, and that the employer and employees enter into an agreement as part of the employment contract and ought to be as free as possible in that regard. Where the **** does the government come in requiring that the employer must give the employee something that perhaps neither of them want to be part of said contract? As I said earlier, for me, this is a broad freedom issue. The government shouldn't be involved in this at all. Period. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS already made a previous (IMO bad) ruling on this, and now is subjecting itself to a whole second wave of more specific cases which it could have avoided.

Quote:
I'm not using the word employer, because it falsely equates the people running a business with the business. You used this word on purpose for the very same reason.


I used the word employer because in this case we are directly dealing with an issue involving employment. Not customers. Not products. Not purchasing or selling. We're dealing with the agreement between the employee and the employer. Hence, "employer" is the better word.

Quote:
I'm trying to point out that the government has the authority to put in place regulations that control how a business is run. you may agree with certain regulations and disagree with other ones, but that doesn't invalidate the authority of the government in this situation. So it's nice that you have something against health care, but is pretty much irrelevant.


Sure. And if we were talking about regulating the byproducts of the industrial processes a business is involved in which may end out in the water table, or the chemical additives in food being served by a business, or the workplace conditions in the business, or any of a number of other things revolving around the concept of minimizing the harmful conditions/results of operating a business, I'd be in full agreement with you. But in this case we're talking about requiring that an employer provide to an employee a specific set of benefits that the state thinks all employees should receive, even if neither the employer nor the employee want that benefit to be part of their employment contract. You just can't equate these two things. And yes, at the risk of being my usual conservative broken record, this is yet another case of the whole "positive versus negative rights" concept. As a conservative I believe there's a huge difference between preventing negative effects and requiring positive ones. Thus, it's reasonable to create regulations to reduce the potential for harmful health effects in a working environment but *not* reasonable to require that employers provide health benefits to employees.

To a liberal, both of those are regulations which improve the health of workers, and thus are the same. To a conservative, one of those limits harmful actions while the other mandates helpful action and are thus completely different. We just measure using a different yardstick is all. And to me, it's bad enough that we allow the government to mandate the benefits which must be included in an employment contract at all and even worse to even contemplate doing so in a way that intentionally violates the employers religious beliefs. Also, I believe that had we made the correct decision in the first place (ie: don't do this at all), then the second case doesn't come up. We've put ourselves in the position of having to decide which religious beliefs are sufficient to warrant exception to the law and which aren't. A position I don't think any of us are comfortable with.


It would have been much better to simply reject the mandate in the first place.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#14 Aug 01 2014 at 7:45 PM Rating: Good
******
44,314 posts
gbaji wrote:
If there had been any mix of sexes among the conservative and liberal justices, the ruling would have been the same.
I have just as much evidence as you do saying it wouldn't. You've lost a step, old man.

Edited, Aug 1st 2014 9:45pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#15 Aug 01 2014 at 7:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
trickybeck wrote:

Gbaji would love to deregulate businesses...until he'd realize that people's personal assets would become fair game in lawsuits, and then he'd be right off that bandwagon. You want government off your back? Then say goodbye to limited liability. Oh, and say goodbye to low corporate tax rate...your business is a person, it gets taxed like one, which will mean 40% in most cases.


Again though, we need to make a distinction between regulation that prevents businesses from causing harm, and regulation which requires businesses to provide help. It's patently unfair to just broad brush my position as deregulation, with the implication that we must accept an "all or nothing" condition here. There are many types of regulation. Let's actually look at the case before us instead of making broad associative arguments, ok?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#16 Aug 01 2014 at 10:16 PM Rating: Excellent
And, again, pay your people better, employers. So they can, y'know, just buy their own health insurance.


I read an article recently (sorry no link, I'm sure you can Google it) that stated Wal-Mart's NET PROFIT last year was 10 billion $US. The total burden to US taxpayers due to Wal-Mart employees's was 2.3 billion $US. There is NO @#%^ING excuse for that. Greed. Total disregard for fellow humans. Indefensible.

Edited, Aug 1st 2014 10:27pm by Bijou

Edited, Aug 1st 2014 10:28pm by Bijou
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#17 Aug 01 2014 at 11:12 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,586 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
I read an article recently (sorry no link, I'm sure you can Google it) that stated Wal-Mart's NET PROFIT last year was 10 billion $US. The total burden to US taxpayers due to Wal-Mart employees's was 2.3 billion $US. There is NO @#%^ING excuse for that. Greed. Total disregard for fellow humans. Indefensible.

There's a controversy going on right now because Walgreens (HQ in Chicago) is considering moving to London to avoid high US taxes. (Of course if a person tried hiding their money in a foreign account, it'd be tax evasion). So I thought to myself "wow, I didn't know Walgreens was in so much financial trouble." Then I looked up their annual report: they've made $2 billion net profit every year since at least 2009.
____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#18 Aug 02 2014 at 6:27 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Friar Bijou wrote:
I read an article recently (sorry no link, I'm sure you can Google it) that stated Wal-Mart's NET PROFIT last year was 10 billion $US. The total burden to US taxpayers due to Wal-Mart employees's was 2.3 billion $US. There is NO @#%^ING excuse for that. Greed. Total disregard for fellow humans. Indefensible.

Haha, I saw the president of the American Enterprise Institute on some PBS Sunday show last week talking about this. His defense of it came down to (obviously paraphrased) "Well, if they had to pay their workers more then they'd just fire a bunch of them and then the unemployment rate would be the fault of those who complained." When asked if maybe they couldn't use some of the massive profits to pay them a living wage, he said "Of course not, those belong to the shareholders and it'd be unfair to take those from them".

So there ya go. Conservative principles are "The rest of you subsidize our company so we can get rich. Oh, and then call the people we refuse to pay more the '47%' who are on welfare and refuse to take any responsibility for their lives."
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#19 Aug 02 2014 at 8:03 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,015 posts
Well gee, if you want to make a livable wage then all you need to do is head your own Fortune 500 company, what's wrong with you!
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#20 Aug 02 2014 at 8:49 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
12,055 posts
Really, the solution to this problem is for healthcare not being part of the employee compensation package.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#21 Aug 02 2014 at 9:17 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Timelordwho wrote:
Really, the solution to this problem is for healthcare not being part of the employee compensation package.

I don't think that's a problem for most Walmart employees.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#22 Aug 02 2014 at 10:31 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
12,055 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Really, the solution to this problem is for healthcare not being part of the employee compensation package.

I don't think that's a problem for most Walmart employees.


Sort of. We have designed a system which makes the assumption of employer being the vendors of health insurance. This means that the employees of firms not offering health care are especially disadvantaged. With a fully public healthcare model, employers couldn't restrict the plans chosen.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#23 Aug 02 2014 at 11:08 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I was mainly being flip re: Walmart not providing insurance but I agree that a public healthcare system would be best.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#24 Aug 02 2014 at 3:42 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,744 posts
Free healthcare! Free healthcare! Free healthcare!
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#25 Aug 02 2014 at 5:47 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
And, again, pay your people better, employers. So they can, y'know, just buy their own health insurance.


But do you see how something like Obamacare makes that less likely, and not more? It's about the portion of a persons compensation which they get to choose what to spend it on shrinking. Yes. A percentage of workers were not being paid enough to be able to purchase their own health care. However, the dirty little secret of the health care debate is that a much larger percentage of workers earned enough to afford to purchase health care but choose not to. Choice. That's freedom. That's what's being taken away with all of this.

The overwhelming majority of employees do earn enough to obtain health insurance if they want to. The point is that they could choose to do that if they wanted before, and now they have no choice. Even if they are young and healthy and have no need for health insurance, they are forced by ACA to purchase it. And that's the real issue here. Hiding behind the small exception cases while ignoring the much bigger issue at hand is foolish IMO.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#26 Aug 02 2014 at 7:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
However, the dirty little secret of the health care debate is that a much larger percentage of workers earned enough to afford to purchase health care but choose not to.

Much larger than "zero" in a cosmic sense, I suppose.

Kaiser Family Foundation wrote:
Why are so many Americans uninsured?
The high cost of insurance is the main reason why people go without coverage. Many people do not have access to coverage through a job, and gaps in eligibility for public coverage leave many without an affordable option.
[...]
Who are the uninsured?
The majority of the uninsured are in low-income working families. Reflecting the more limited availability of public coverage, adults are more likely to be uninsured than children. People of color are at higher risk of being uninsured than non-Hispanic Whites.

KFF wrote:
Uninsured individuals report that cost poses a major barrier to purchasing coverage. In 2012, 61% of adults said that one of the reasons they are uninsured is either because the cost is too high or because they lost their job, compared to 1.5% who said they are uninsured because they do not need coverage
(bolding mine)

Screenshot


Edited, Aug 2nd 2014 8:20pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#27 Aug 02 2014 at 7:18 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
And, again, pay your people better, employers. So they can, y'know, just buy their own health insurance.


But do you see how something like Obamacare makes that less likely, and not more? It's about the portion of a persons compensation which they get to choose what to spend it on shrinking. Yes. A percentage of workers were not being paid enough to be able to purchase their own health care. However, the dirty little secret of the health care debate is that a much larger percentage of workers earned enough to afford to purchase health care but choose not to. Choice. That's freedom. That's what's being taken away with all of this.
If you don't make enough to get health care at all, that's a loss of freedom, too. And if the corporation you work for could either pay you more or give you a health care package and don't?...it's a theft of freedom.
gbaji wrote:
The overwhelming majority of employees do earn enough to obtain health insurance if they want to. .

Cite, plz.



You are also ignoring the bit about ACA disallowing refusal of coverage based on pre-existing conditions. Now, if you link an health care plan that will take me, with my PEC's, I might think better of you...but you can't.

Edited, Aug 2nd 2014 7:48pm by Bijou
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#28 Aug 03 2014 at 12:09 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,491 posts
Much larger than "zero" in a cosmic sense, I suppose.

Look at this @#%^ with his "facts" and "citations to data".

While we are here, it's also commonly known among conservatives that:

Women choose to make less money to they can stay home and be moms.
Black people don't want to work, and would rather loaf about on public assistance.
Illegal immigrants steal high paying middle class jobs from honest hard working white folks, and commit most crimes that aren't committed by black men.
Lowering taxes always leads to economic growth, except for taxes on the middle class which we need to pay for corporate welfare. Those taxes are needed to "pay for things" that government provides. There's no free lunch...for the middle class.
Etc. Etc. Death panels, magic rape contraception from Jesus.

Edited, Aug 3rd 2014 2:14pm by Smasharoo
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#29 Aug 04 2014 at 6:14 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,243 posts
gbaji wrote:
The split was ideological, and not gender based.

They're not exclusive. Women are ideologically more pro-women. It wasn't me that made the claim it was Ruth Ginsberg.

You look silly explaining how you're more understanding of the inner workings of the SCOTUS than one of the Nine.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#30 Aug 04 2014 at 10:01 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,004 posts
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The split was ideological, and not gender based.

They're not exclusive. Women are ideologically more pro-women. It wasn't me that made the claim it was Ruth Ginsberg.

You look silly explaining how you're more understanding of the inner workings of the SCOTUS than one of the Nine.
Well if the Republicans would actually put a woman on the court we could all see whether or not it's really a chick thing.

Seems like they'd rather just accuse people of playing politics. Smiley: disappointed

Edited, Aug 4th 2014 9:01am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#31 Aug 04 2014 at 11:46 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,243 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The split was ideological, and not gender based.

They're not exclusive. Women are ideologically more pro-women. It wasn't me that made the claim it was Ruth Ginsberg.

You look silly explaining how you're more understanding of the inner workings of the SCOTUS than one of the Nine.
Well if the Republicans would actually put a woman on the court

Sandra Day O'Connor.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#32 Aug 04 2014 at 12:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,004 posts
Elinda wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The split was ideological, and not gender based.

They're not exclusive. Women are ideologically more pro-women. It wasn't me that made the claim it was Ruth Ginsberg.

You look silly explaining how you're more understanding of the inner workings of the SCOTUS than one of the Nine.
Well if the Republicans would actually put a woman on the court

Sandra Day O'Connor.
We can't live in the past. This is a 'what have you done for me lately' kind of world.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#33 Aug 04 2014 at 12:33 PM Rating: Good
******
44,314 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
We can't live in the past.
Tell that to our distinguished Californian that is still trying.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#34 Aug 05 2014 at 7:11 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
First off, Joph, "not needing it" and "choosing not to buy it" are not mutually aligned concepts. Very few people, if asked "do you need health insurance" would say no. But a much larger number of people (like say, most single people between the ages of 18 and 30), if given the choice to purchase health insurance will choose not to because they'd rather spend their money on other things. Those are not reflected in the statistics you cited.

Friar Bijou wrote:
If you don't make enough to get health care at all, that's a loss of freedom, too.


No, it's not. Not without radically changing the meaning of the word "freedom". Freedom doesn't mean you get stuff. Freedom means others have less power to tell you what to do. Whether you have health insurance or not has *nothing* to do with freedom. On the other hand, being forced to purchase health insurance does infringe your freedom (cause, it's someone else telling you what to do).

Quote:
And if the corporation you work for could either pay you more or give you a health care package and don't?...it's a theft of freedom.


Huh? No, it's not. It's the corporation paying you whatever the fair market value of your labor is. What that buys you is an entirely different issue. And again, neither of them have anything at all to do with freedom. It's just strange to me how so many people have come to believe that freedom means someone else giving you something. That's just bizarre. Where the **** do you get this idea?


Quote:
gbaji wrote:
The overwhelming majority of employees do earn enough to obtain health insurance if they want to. .

Cite, plz.


Really? Joph's cite says 47 million uninsured Americans. The BLS says that there are 156 million people employed in the US. Ergo, basic math tells us that the majority of employed people earn enough to obtain health insurance. Even if we assume that 100% off the uninsured people are employed (um... certainly not close to true), there are over twice as many employed people with insurance than without (which may or may not qualify as "overwhelming", but this is the worse case scenario). Assuming we agree that most of the 47 million uninsured are also unemployed (btw, there are around 90 million people who are not participating in the labor market, just to put the numbers in perspective), then my use of the phrase "overwhelming majority" is pretty darn accurate.

There's a lot of bait and switch language that floats around the ACA stats. But the reality is that the actual number of people who did not have health insurance prior to the passage of the ACA because they simply could not afford it is likely lower than the number of people who could afford it, but choose not to buy it but are now forced to do so by the same law. And when we add in all the people now forced to purchase insurance that covers a wider assortment of things than before (increasing the cost of their premiums), the ratio of people negatively impacted by the law relative to those benefited by it grows even greater.

Quote:
You are also ignoring the bit about ACA disallowing refusal of coverage based on pre-existing conditions.


I'm not ignoring this at all. It's just not super relevant to the discussion at hand. Except perhaps to the point that this is yet one more thing that increases the cost to everyone actually paying into the system. A side issue, I suppose.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#35 Aug 05 2014 at 7:23 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The split was ideological, and not gender based.

They're not exclusive. Women are ideologically more pro-women.


I think that liberal women are more pro-women, for a very narrow definition of "pro-women". You do understand that it's usually the folks on the left who view things primarily through the lens of identity politics, right? Conservative women tend to think more in terms of "what is in line with the constitutional principle at hand"? You know, just like conservative men, and conservative blacks, and conservative latinos, and conservative homosexuals. Because we think in terms of the principles, not what benefits the group we happen to be a member of.

Quote:
It wasn't me that made the claim it was Ruth Ginsberg.


So? She has a strong motivation to make this about gender instead of yet another case of "liberals want to impose big government rules on us all". ****. You created an entire thread because she said this was about gender. If she'd said that the ruling reflected the ideological differences between the left and right, you would not have had a reason to make an outraged post about it. This thread is the evidence of why she said what she said, and the precise reaction she hoped to get.


Quote:
You look silly explaining how you're more understanding of the inner workings of the SCOTUS than one of the Nine.


It's not about the inner workings of the SCOTUS. It's about a pretty obvious ideological methodology at play. The left consistently attempts to paint issues within the context of the identity of the people involved and how it affects those groups. This is not new or anything. Conservatives tend to judge based on actions/choices people make, while liberals tend to judge based on who the people are and what identity group(s) they belong to. So it's kinda obvious that Ginsberg is playing to the "war on women" idea. It's an easy sell to the liberal base.

Edited, Aug 5th 2014 6:24pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#36 Aug 05 2014 at 8:00 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
I wrote:
And if the corporation you work for could either pay you more or give you a health care package and don't?...it's a theft of freedom.


Huh? No, it's not.
You get to claim that taxation is theft, but I'm not to claim that underpaying employees is also theft? Huh.
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#37 Aug 05 2014 at 8:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
First off, Joph, "not needing it" and "choosing not to buy it" are not mutually aligned concepts.

Right. And if we just ignore numbers that are inconvenient to us and make up our own numbers, we can say it's a "dirty little secret" when we're actually just making shit up.

Great job teaching everyone, Professor. Probably not the lesson you meant to give though.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#38 Aug 06 2014 at 6:01 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,243 posts
gbaji wrote:
[
It's not about the inner workings of the SCOTUS. It's about a pretty obvious ideological methodology at play. The left consistently attempts to paint issues within the context of the identity of the people involved and how it affects those groups. This is not new or anything. Conservatives tend to judge based on actions/choices people make, while liberals tend to judge based on who the people are and what identity group(s) they belong to. So it's kinda obvious that Ginsberg is playing to the "war on women" idea. It's an easy sell to the liberal base.

Edited, Aug 5th 2014 6:24pm by gbaji

The thing is this: Gender inequality exists, just like racism and sexism exist. If Women's issues are not part of the republican agenda (ideologically speaking of course Smiley: rolleyes), then you've marginalized women.

I've never personally used the term 'War on Women' to describe the right's stance on gender inequality. That's your term.

But it's nice to see you own up to the fact that not only do women's issues go unrecognized within your political party, but other groups that may attempt to rectify or bring to light gender-inconsistencies are anti-conservative.

You and your cronies just keep wondering why women vote overwhelmingly democrat....Smiley: oyvey.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#39 Aug 06 2014 at 7:16 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,314 posts
gbaji wrote:
I think that liberal women are more pro-women,
Just because you work in a building with women doesn't make you an expert on women.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#40 Aug 06 2014 at 7:18 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,243 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I think that liberal women are more pro-women,
Just because you work in a building with women doesn't make you an expert on women.

He came from a women (maybe).

edit: How could I forgot this....






Edited, Aug 6th 2014 8:18pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#41 Aug 06 2014 at 7:21 AM Rating: Good
******
44,314 posts
Maybe one day he'll see a second one.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#42 Aug 06 2014 at 7:45 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,491 posts

There's a lot of bait and switch language that floats around the ACA stats. But the reality is that the actual number of people who did not have health insurance prior to the passage of the ACA because they simply could not afford it is likely lower than the number of people who could afford it, but choose not to buy it but are now forced to do so by the same law.


This is wildly false. I mean LUDICROUSLY false. So false that one would have to be alarmingly ignorant, or possibly, gullible to find it even vaguely credible.

That aside, you can see the problem it would cause had it ever been true, right? People who "could afford health insurance but choose not to buy it" are the people who must be in the system to ALLOW health insurance to be affordable to people who need it. It's not ******* rocket science. Healthy people with money overpay in exchange for protection from catastrophe. The overpayment subsidies sick people without money. We call it "society". The previous system of "heads I win, tails you lose" conservative theory of "I don't pay for health insurance because I'll probably be fine, but you know, if **** goes sideways you provide care to me gratis" was untenable.

Can you see why? Just kidding, you can't. You suck at math.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#44 Aug 06 2014 at 12:29 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,491 posts


Nuh uh you're wrong. Gotta love those impressive debating skills you're throwing out there.


Facts aren't debatable. Sorry. I know your entire political philosophy is predicated on the idea that they are :( So sad :( I feel great pity for you.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#45 Aug 06 2014 at 12:51 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,243 posts
freedomfried wrote:
Gotta love those impressive debating skills you're throwing out there.


When you respond to gbaji logic you have to improvise on debating skills.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#46 Aug 06 2014 at 5:50 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I wrote:
And if the corporation you work for could either pay you more or give you a health care package and don't?...it's a theft of freedom.


Huh? No, it's not.
You get to claim that taxation is theft, but I'm not to claim that underpaying employees is also theft? Huh.


You're not talking about underpaying employees though. You're saying that an employer must pay for health care or it's theft of freedom. Setting aside the whole freedom angle and just looking at "theft", the issue is over what we define as "underpaid". If the labor you are performing for me isn't worth the cost of paying for your health insurance, then requiring me to pay that isn't preventing me from underpaying you, but requiring me to overpay you.

You can't just arbitrarily decide that not paying for health insurance is underpaying. The market decides what the value of your labor is. If you're underpaid, then go work for someone else who will pay you what you are worth. If there is no one willing to pay what you *think* you are worth, then you think you're worth more than you actually are. There's no underpaying going on here.

I'll also point out (again) that in some cases the employee would rather receive more money rather than more benefits which he may or may not need. Assuming we agree that health benefits are part of compensation, then it follows that if your employer provides you those benefits, it's always at the expense of lower pay than you would have received otherwise. Requiring the employer provide health benefits is basically taking the money the employee would otherwise receive. And if he's healthy and doesn't need much health care, that's actually theft right there.


Why is it so wrong to just let people make their own decisions? Isn't that what freedom is really all about?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#47 Aug 06 2014 at 6:28 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Elinda wrote:
The thing is this: Gender inequality exists, just like racism and sexism exist. If Women's issues are not part of the republican agenda (ideologically speaking of course Smiley: rolleyes), then you've marginalized women.


Except that conservatives don't think in terms of "women's issues". We think in terms of "equality under the law". Period. The second you start dividing people up into groups and labeling them, and defining different issues for each one, you're no longer fighting for equality. You're pandering to each group to get votes. Calling not doing that "marginalizing women (or whatever group we're talking about)" is unfair IMO. And it's certainly inaccurate when you start out justifying this on the basis of inequality existing because you're not actually fighting against inequality.

Quote:
I've never personally used the term 'War on Women' to describe the right's stance on gender inequality. That's your term.


It's a term that is broadly used by the left and applied to the right. It's not all about you, you know! Smiley: tongue

Quote:
But it's nice to see you own up to the fact that not only do women's issues go unrecognized within your political party, but other groups that may attempt to rectify or bring to light gender-inconsistencies are anti-conservative.


Again though, my problem is with the very label of "women's issues". Who gets to decide what one must do in order to be sufficiently active with regards to women's issues? Because it looks as though the measuring stick being used is that if conservatives don't take the same positions as liberals, we're somehow marginalizing women because we don't care about "women's issues". I just don't buy that at all.

Quote:
You and your cronies just keep wondering why women vote overwhelmingly democrat....Smiley: oyvey.


We don't wonder about it at all. We know why. However, our base principles prevent us from engaging in the same pandering that the left does. It's like two parents engaged in a custody battle. One parent lets the children stay up as late as they want, eat whatever food they want, doesn't require any chores, and gives them a big honking allowance, while the other is actually being responsible with the children. No one would be surprised if, when asked who they prefer to live with, they say the first one.

It doesn't make that right though. You could label those "children issues" and call the other parent names because she doesn't do those nice things for her kids, but at the end of the day she's doing what's right and fair, while the other parent is just buying the kids affections. Surely you can see how this isn't a great way to go about things?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#48 Aug 06 2014 at 7:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
You hear that, Elinda? Your reproductive rights are just like being given ice cream and pin money! And people say Republicans don't know how to pander...
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#49 Aug 06 2014 at 7:18 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
We don't wonder about it at all. We know why. However, our base principles prevent us from engaging in the same pandering that the left does. It's like two parents engaged in a custody battle. One parent lets the children stay up as late as they want, eat whatever food they want, doesn't require any chores, and gives them a big honking allowance, while the other is actually being responsible with the children. No one would be surprised if, when asked who they prefer to live with, they say the first one.
You realize you just said that conservatives view woman as children, right?

Thanks for making Elinda's point.
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#50 Aug 06 2014 at 7:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Not only children, but children who are easily bought off and make all their decisions based on who is letting them stay up late.

Party of Santa Claus!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#51 Aug 06 2014 at 7:59 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
2,603 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Not only children, but children who are easily bought off and make all their decisions based on who is letting them stay up late.

Party of Santa Claus!


Well, yeah, they are easily bought off. A shiny new purse and a gift card for Saks, and they might even swallow!

Smiley: tongue

Nope, guess not.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 40 All times are in CST
Kavekkk, Poldaran, TirithRR, Anonymous Guests (37)